Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 22, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT

5:00 pm
labor councils, in that regard, we have -- i will confirm positive conversations with your staff. the conversations, i will offer some corrective supplement, yes, we do acknowledge that to require that all power production and maintenance and operation be performed union is a reach, however, we do believe it is entirely appropriate for the commission to insist as you ask its staff to work out standards for wages and for benefits for that production. tla's entirely within your purview, i think it is unfortunate that she cast some doubt about a project labor agreement for the work, and did not actually tell you what the criteria were for having the project labor agreement with the city. i believe that it's very
5:01 pm
straight forward and that it requires that there be some advantage that the city gains by having a project labor agreement and i'll give you one example in this particular context, every one of our project labor agreements has a dispute resolution agreement to which contractors and trades are bound, you've been told a problem with the production of solar power in this town because of jurisdictional disputes, that problem goes away with a project labor agreement, so we have given her an example of an energy retrofit agreement for a half million dollar project for the housing development, it is a very effective agreement, it is extending that to 43 additional properties and quite a bit more money and we're now in discussions for the same amount of work, so we look forward to working with you one way or another. >> thank you very much. >> cameron?
5:02 pm
welcome. >> thank you very much for letting me speak today. i just want to say i'm a student, four years and resident of four years here in san francisco and of environmental studies, due to the state of the changing climate, we need to start our transition to 100% renewable energy, cleanpowersf will help us do that, it's renewable energy, cleanpowersf will give residents to encourage local renewable energy infrastructure and global green jobs, the rates are low and competitive and should be passed today. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> hi, i'm david zepgar, i want to thank the commission and staff for all the work that eve done to date, i'm concerned about cleanpowersf, i would feel better knowing that all of my energy was renewable and for that reason, i urge you to
5:03 pm
approve the not to exceed rates today so we can get this program rolling as soon as possible. thank you. >> al winera. he left? okay. eric brooks. alright. dr. espanola jackson. >> good afternoon, dr. espanola jackson. it was kind of funny to me sitting here listening to the renewable and the electrical. i want you all to take a look at this because of the fact that you all voted sometime ago dealing with solar, and i want you to see what my bill is, my
5:04 pm
electric bill is 103 dollars and some cents, now i'm not -- yes, you will see it when it comes around to you. you know, i don't represent or get paid by pg&e, but as you see, you all when i got my solar -- >> god, i wish i had your bill. >> so, what i want you all to do is please, what you continue with, i think 7 years, years ago, they were talking about bringing pfrs into my community, you know, and that failed, you all voted it down, and this is what we have solar, and the thing of it is, is that the's the reason when i spoke in the beginning is i'm here to support solar for all of san franciscans, thank you so very much. >> thank you, doctored, eric brooks?
5:05 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioner, eric brooks, san francisco green party, local grass roots organization outer city, i've been working on this for about 9 and a half year, i think most of you commissioners if not all of you, all of our ally supervisors, eric mar, john avalos, all of you are staffed and all of even my environmental group allies can tell you that over the last 9 and a half years, because i've been pushing so hard on the local build-out making sure it happens, i've been on the biggest pain on the butt of all of those allies and all of your staff in the city. >> i think you're a very nice person, eric. >> i think other folks might rightfully disagree, especially your staff, i've definitely been a pain in their butt. >> in their? >> butt, butt. i can tell you the reason for that is up to about a year ago,
5:06 pm
we had no guarantees, we had no guarantees that this program was going to get off the ground in a way that had a reasonable rate, that would have a low opt-out rate, that would make it possible to get enough customers into this program to do the big local build-out of hundreds of megawatts of renewable and efficiency, thousands of jobs that go with that, but since -- i have to give kudos to kim malcolm, we are down to a possible rate which is competitive do pg&e brown power rates, the opt-out will be 20% or less because we had the chance to set the right rates today, that means we'll be able to get the build-out underwear way, it is time to move this forward, we are no longer saying no, we are saying yes, and to those folks of all the labor union that is are in the room, i guarantee you the
5:07 pm
activists will fight tooth and nail to make sure that project labor agreement ares used to make this thing rock solid on union hiring. .sing thank you, mr. brooks. [inaudible]. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners, if i understand correctly, the only bidder for the contract when that contract was let go was with shell and it is a transition contract, a small p-e-r-c-e-n-t-a-g-e time you as an organization could be full speed ahead with local jobs, local people, even developing rec that could be purchased by other groups, one week ago today i walked into my classroom, my first course is environmental science, we won't focus on the science, i want to comment on some policy and
5:08 pm
politics and i would love to walk into that classroom and discuss with them the progress that the city is making in moving towards 100% renewable, clean energy, make no mistake, we will discuss the policy x the politics on the issue and i hope that's what i'm putting in front of them, i'm going to be teaching my 10th graders meteorologist, they will be seeing what's known oz a hock ke stick graph, the increase in carbon dioxide and we will talk about policy, and i hope this group moves forward to set that cap which is merely a cap, all it is doing is saying once those rates are set, it won't go above this, isn't setting the shell contract in gold, it isn't setting a cap, it would be good to be set to go forward
5:09 pm
with local energy resources. >> thank you for your teaching commitment. [inaudible] acosta. >> commissioners, this is about community choice aggregation. you will get people coming here, you've heard them, that they've done that and they have done that and the other thing about the community, but truly speaking, when it comes to the southeast sector and i hope you folks are listening at home, very wlilgts has been done in that community. let's talk about choice. the former general manager
5:10 pm
clearly stated not to have anything to do with renewable energy credits, conveniently, some of you all are not agreeing with it. the choice that you so-called commissioners are making should be a choice that is deliberated by the community, especially the most wonderful community. for 60 years, the power plants are in the southeast sector, but in the other areas where the sfpuc staff conducted a survey and said, those people are willing to pay more money for so-called clean energy. this debate is [inaudible] and for the people who e spen here has atto you,
5:11 pm
this debate is defumary, this is san francisco, this started a droning time ago, this hydro electricity and today it is going backwards. >> thank you, mr. david atoray. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners, david altore with the labor 261 and i took the liberty to writing my thoughts down on paper, the labor have long sought to be elite partner this the city's pursuit of renewable energy and job creation goal, back in march bh the sfpuc thought of setting rates, we asked three critical questions on behalf of our members many of whom are here today, in the overflow room, and they are one, where
5:12 pm
this program create jobs for our members and the local community members we seek to promote, how many jobs will the program create and three, where and when will these jobs be created? today we have no concrete answer tos these specific questions and cannot support moving forward with a program as it is proposed today, we will however support the sfpuc's immediate issuance of solar bonds and in the immediate progress towards a local build-out of renewable and efficiency that creates local jobs but under the circumstance, we cannot support going forward with what is proposed before the commission today. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other comments from anyone? anyone? if you wish to comment, please make a request form so i know who you are. >> i apologize.
5:13 pm
>> you kept it in your pocket? >> my name is chris wright, i'm the executive direct or of the jobs and association of the largest private sector employer, i want to take this opportunity to subjecting that we all take a closer look, a careful look on what we have before us, this is the program that was advertised to san franciscans months ago or years ago, this is a program that is worth supporting. as an organization that represents some of the city's largest rate payers, we have been following this, i do not recognize what's being proposed, a program that opts in k*us yeses that will cost customers more than what was suggested months ago, and that is arguably dirtier than what we had, i'm also not confident of the jobs forecasts made by the san francisco puc staff, since those are based on projected work which is financed through the clutch and
5:14 pm
future revenue that is far from guaranteed, in fact, the commercial -- just looking back, the relatively independent report that was done by the city controller said that the city will lose job, those rates were lower then, the rates are higher now, i think we should have a more independent review of the impacted jobs here in san francisco. >> who's the city controller at that time? >> [inaudible]. if the san francisco puc is concerned about job creation, you already have the tools to do so. before implementing this paragraph, you can move forward and build out multiple solar project that is have already been plan and had create more jobs without the job plan incurred by these points, i would like to take this time to express my continued concern, it was mentioned earlier today by the chamber of commerce by the automatic opt in, if a
5:15 pm
private sector automatically enrolled a customer for a certain product at a higher cost, there would be quick concerns expressed from this building and from the media. i hope you review this carefully. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wright. any further public comments? you need to give us who you are. there you are, wait until the last minute. can i have that, please. >> good afternoon, president and commissioners, thank you for having me here to speak today. i would like to make a comment that we are not here today to decide whether we want this program or not in san francisco, we're here to take a vote on rates for the program, the not to exceed rate, the board of supervisors almost a year ago now approved this program with 8 votes with a super majority to move forward with this program, we are not here today to decide whether this program is good for san francisco, the board of supervisors already knew that, we're here to approve the not
5:16 pm
to exceed rate that were recommended by your staff. i know in your packet, you received 379 signatures from san francisco residents through our action alert from this weekend, but i went back and made sure to compile a list for each of you, of everyone who has ever signed an actual alert from clean power and wanting it to move forward through our system in the last two years and i have for you 1700 signatures from san francisco residents, five copy, sorry, hell l -- helen, i didn't make one for you, they're double sided, i promise. >> have you kept all the names to make sure you didn't repeat them? >> yes, absolutely, and i made sure there's no duplicates, that's 1700 san pra*ns resident, not just the people that i represent. >> i thought you said you
5:17 pm
represent 6 thousand? >> i do. >> thank you for doing this. ing >> yes, of course, i wanted to make this proposal as easy as possible for you and we have all the information, so thank you for giving me time to speak today and i hope that you arao*uf the rates of 11.5 cents. >> thank you for your compassion, your dedication, it's not unnoted. >> yes, jason freed lock, i had a carbon earlier but i submitted another one earlier since it got misplaced. >> i would never misplace you. er >> i know you wouldn't. >> no, i didn't. why did you do that? [laughter]. >> so, anyways, you already heard from jerry pollock who spoke on behalf of supervisor avalos, his comments are close to what i'm going to be saying as well, 11 months ago, the board of supervisors gave this commission a responsibility,
5:18 pm
approve rate, move this program forward, come up with a plan, they added some additional comment tos what the original plan was that you presented to them prior to that, they had taken time to get to that point, i understand this is a long process, if you look at the letter from shell that they submitted to you yesterday, talk about 100% gha free, 100% in california, let's look at 2012's mix of the three largest solar project that is pg&e built, some of their farther stuff down the list comes in, in california, they're not caring about building stuff here, this program does do that, this program allows us to do it, i know nr's a lot of politics at play, this shouldn't be a political body and i hope you fiekt it from ever becoming a political body. >> can we lay that to rest. there's politics on both sides of this issue, so to ascribe one side being more political than the other just isn't right.
5:19 pm
>> if you let me finish, that was my very point, i want you to be the policy makers, to make the good decisions, you heard multiple people who came up here who lined about staff not doing their jobs complimenting them today, i think that's a major accomplishment, if you have concerns about that, that's okay, we're still not finished building it, let's address those concerns over the next six month,, aprover the rate today, and then come back to you and say are you happy with this or not rkts you can individually write let teaser the supervisors and let them know what your concerns are and they can come back and say some of the issues, [inaudible] deal with this issue while you're building out the program over the next 6 months. >> mr. president? >> yes, commissioner? >> i would just like to point this out, if you look at the
5:20 pm
resolution that is in our packet, it clearly states many other things besides rates, we are considering more things because the way this resolution is written, it brings up every topic, everything we may disagree with or want further discussion about, so with that in consideration, i'll pass it along. >> point well taken. any other public comment? i just want to say thank you, we've mad a very robust dialog and conversations and communications and i want to thank each and every one of the witnesses who took the time to be here and to exercise your first amendment right to bring your grievance before a governmental body. i'd like to ask if any of the commissioners have anything they would like to add? vice-president courtney? >> thank you, president torres, i want to echo president torres' comments, i've learned a lot about the advocates, i've
5:21 pm
certainly learned lot about a lot of the individuals, i have the utmost respect for supervisor avalos and some of the great work he done specifically in the labor community, my brother and my friend eric brooks is an outstanding advocates and i've gotten to know a lot of the advocates very well, there are a lot of things that have been discussed but i do want to state clearly for the record because people at home need to know certain things, i happen to be a member of the san francisco labor council, the san francisco building construction trades council and i'm also a delegate for the alliance of jobs and sustainable growth. each of those bodies have weighed in, in one way or another in this conversation. the san francisco building construction phase council has clearly said they would be willing to work with shell energy as a provider with the project labor agreement, the san francisco labor council has not opposed shell in and of
5:22 pm
itself in having since have presented some specific principles they would like to see followed, and i know staff has done a good job in engaging those conversation and is the alliance and sustainable growth weighed in late this week about the environmental concerns about the deliverables, i'm going to talk about shop the shell shock campaign, it was initiated by ibw1245, i know of only one other labor organization in town that has taken a position in opposition to doing business with shell. for labor local 261, we have taken a position in support of cc a, that hasn't changed but i think it's an important distinction to make because i did attend the hearing at the environment commission the other night, it was about three hours and i think one of the reasons why it was porntd to note what vice-president anglo king had to say today is because that was the fourth vote. we could be having a completely different conversation if the
5:23 pm
environment commission ak hull took a position and said we don't support rate setting either because these object stirs and goals have yet to be met and i think what they're referring to is they're referring to the draft of the outline of the plan, and so community advocates and correct me, i might add, have said, this has to be about the community and what's in it for them, it can't be one sided, it was always rep senate, that there would be opportunities for communities in needs, specifically the southeast sector and that's why we began to frame this sector as the green new deal and that's relevant because new deals deal specifically with jobs, where we have the public authority housing projects, solar installation, opportunities for those people, i think it's a problem if we continue to have this discussion and say just set rate and is we'll worry about all the details late e we have a tendency to do that to people and they're tired of it, they're sick of it. they want to talk about their new deal and i want to talk
5:24 pm
about their green new deal, i want to talk about solar and i want to be in a position to engage the puc and engage the city and engage these new energy product and is meet our environmental goals and objective, for those reasons, among other, the shell shock campaign, it didn't have anything to do with where the labor union is coming from, it was their opportunity to voice their member's concerns, but i won't be ready to set rates today. >> any other commissioner wish to make a comment? commissioner moran? >> thank you. this has been a long time coming and actually, between the time that i stopped being internal manager and came back to the commission, the city had opted a policy that we should pursue cc a and that wasn't my policy, it wasn't the commission's poll sill, it was the city's policy and we have
5:25 pm
really been the designated implementing agency to see what had to happen to make that dream come true. as i took na on when i came back , i was basically agnostic on the merits of cc a and i set out two basic criteria for my support, one would be that we use program assumptions that were realistic and not just on our fondest hope but on something we thought we could asylums sdain -- sustain, and those risks be identified, those be disclosed and either they be mitigated or funded, depending on what was possible, in the course of the past several years, i think we've done that. the assumptions that we're using today are realistic, the risks have been mitigated, the
5:26 pm
board has funded those that couldn't be mitigated and in the course of doing that, as is true so much in life, it's true when i wipe the fog off the mirror in the morning, you know, before reality sets in, i look a lot better, and then i wipe it off and reality strike, i have to ask whether that's good enough -- >> if you had a fan in your bathroom -- >> i have a fan in my house but not in my bathroom. so, we have done that i think and one of the products of it is i think the program loses some of its luster with we do that, some of the things that we thought or hoped we could do appears aren't in a feasible set and that's just not a choice. so, i think the question that we all have to wrestle with at this point is whether or not what we have is good enough, it's not what we started out
5:27 pm
with but is it good enough, and my answer to that is yes, that the program has met my two criteria in terms of being realistic and also dealing with risk and it has also maintained the possibility of some benefits which i think are significant, one of those is local build-out and i suggest without revenues or customers, you don't have local build-out, and the other is the possibility of finding customers for excess [inaudible] generation, and i think that's very important, so both of those are policy, we haven't worked out the details on yet, but i think the program as presented maintains those possibilities and i think for those reasons, i will be prepared to support the rate. >> any other commissioner want to make any other comments? >> i do.
5:28 pm
>> commissioner caen? >> i too would like to thank everyone for your input. i've been with this program for nine years since its inception in 04 and i always had as you well know problems with the financial side of it. i'm very uncomfortable with this opt-out situation. i have always questioned the survey, it shows 17% would definitely stay in the program and survey also showed that 70% would definitely opt-out of the program and then you have all that in between that i think it was -- i have it right here, 28 probably would stay in, so we're working on the assumption there would be 45% that would stay in. now, if they don't and if people opt out, we have the responsibility of the reserve
5:29 pm
of 19.5 million dollars. i think this is a new business that we're adding to our utility, and you have to remember our mission statement which says water first, and i don't know if it's really wise to go into this, and the other reason being is that there are other forms in the works right now, there is the senate bill for additional green power, 43, thank you, i was looking for the number, and also we have pge -- pg&e that is going to start their program, so my feeling is something different i wanted to suggest. i learned that with 19.5 million dollars, we could set up a ppa similar to the solar we have on sunset, we can set
5:30 pm
up a megawatt, taking those monies and putting it into build-out instead of going into this power program, so at this time, until it is reworked, my feeling is i cannot vote today on this. >> thank you very much, commissioner. i wanted to thank the staff of the puc and also i want to thank the staff of the board of supervisors and lafco for all of your hard work and of course to the advocates who are here and labor who are here as well. i think it's very important that we're grateful for all the participation that you've provide and had the input you provided. but i said before that this program has to be a clean energy goals articulated listi'


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on